alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# Time and Date:

The Board of Directors' Search Committee for LSC Inspector General will meet on September 18, 2007 from 9:30 a.m. until conclusion of the Committee's agenda. 

# Location:

Legal Services Corporation headquarters, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. 

# Status of Meeting:

Closed. The meeting will be closed pursuant to a vote of the Board of Directors to hold an executive session. At the closed session, the Committee will interview candidates for the position of Inspector General of the Legal Services Corporation and consider the qualifications of these individuals. The Committee will also consider further steps to be taken in connection with the selection and retention of a finalist for the position, and may also consider and act on additional candidates for the position of Inspector General. The closing is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and LSC's corresponding regulation 45 CFR 1622.5(e). A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request. 

## Matters To Be Considered

### Closed Session 

1. Approval of agenda. 

2. Interviews of select candidates for the position of LSC Inspector General. 

3. Review and discussion regarding qualifications of interviewed and other viable candidates. 

4. Consider and act on further steps to be taken in connection with the selection and retention of a finalist for the position of Inspector General. 

5. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

Patricia Batie, Manager of Board Operations, at (202) 295-1500.

# Special Needs:

Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. For further information, please contact Patricia Batie, at (202) 295-1500. 

Dated: September 7, 2007. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-4469 Filed 9-7-07; 12:40 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:06 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I am writing to urge Mr. Perez to do all in his power to compel all "financial advisers", of 

any type, to immediately make decisions which are fiduciary responsible for their clients.

Anything short of the fiduciary responsibility should be prohibited and punishable by the 

most stringent penalties and fines.

I am recently retired and learned the hard way how predatory some of these "advisers" 

were that did not have my fiduciary interests in their recommendations.
#### Horace McGuire. as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. William H. Cobb and another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

7 Haight, J.
Rockingham,

June, 1894.

#### Norway Plains Savings Bank *v.*Young, *Assignee.*

The question of the competency or sufficiency of the evidence before the probate court is not material in this court upon appeal.

Appeal, by attaching creditors, from a decree of the judge of probate in an involuntary insolvency proceeding, adjudging the debtor insolvent. Trial by the court. The following, with other, reasons of appeal w'ere assigned: That, at the time of the adjudication, claims amounting to $300 were not filed or proved by the petitioning creditor, and that the insolvency of the debtor was not proved. -The petition alleging the facts, sworn to by the petitioner, and an admission by the plaintiff’s that the debtor was insolvent were the only evidence submitted to the judge of probate on these points. The debtor owed the petitioner more than $300, and was insolvent. The decree of the probate court was affirmed, and the plaintiff’s excepted. The other rulings at the trial are not reported because they involved no question of law, or were in favor of the plaintiff's and so become immaterial.

*Worcester, Gafney Snow,*for the plaintiffs. .

*Eastman, Young O’Neill, Arthur 0. Fuller,*and *John S. IE Frink,*for the defendant.

Chase, J.

Questions brought to this court by appeal from a judge of probate are tried anew, as if they had not been tried before. *Wallace*v. *Brown,*25 N. H. *216; Bixby*v. *Harris,*26 N. H. 125, 128; *Cook*v. *Bennett,*51 N. H. 85, 91; *Adams*v. *Adams,*64 N. H. 224, 227. The character of the trial in the probate-court is therefore not material here. It was found at the trial term, presumably upon competent and sufficient evidence, as no exception on this ground is reported, that the debtor was owing the petitioning creditor more than $300, and was insolvent. This finding supports the decree. P. S., *c.*201, *s.*42.

*Exception overruled..*

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY RAY FELDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00295-BO-2; 5:09-cv-00385-BO; 5:10-cv00095-BO)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Ray Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Felder has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Felder’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
From: Rick Clark [mailto:r5936clark@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:29 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I am a small investor. I started doing stock options around 1974. Overall 

I have made pretty good money writing covered calls and writing puts on 

individual stocks. I have been doing the same in my self-directed IRA 

accounts.

I understand that some people lose money in options, but I can't help 

that. Some of those people would lose money by buying and selling 

illogically no matter what the limits were on allowed types of 

investments. However I don't see how to protect them without taking 

control of all IRA accounts away from everyone. I think it is dangerous to 

take control away from those of us who manage their money with care and 

knowledge.

Since this reg seems pointed at conflict-of-interest, I don't see how it 

applies to people like myself who manage their own accounts and never ask 

the brokers their opinion. Perhaps the rule might be written to exclude

stock and other options only from accounts managed by brokers, but leave 

the self-directed accounts free.

 With interest rates less than inflation that I encounter, I use options to 

generate income on some of my account. I would be very hurt if this were 

not allowed. For example I opened an IRA account with ScottTrade only to 

find out they did not allow option trades at that time. I moved the account 

after determining that I had missed the opportunity to make at least $1000 

that year writing put options. It was a great disappointment in that was an 

ideal time for the options positions I favor, much better than the current 

market.

Sincerely,

Richard Clark

age 64
**Exhibit 32.3**

**Certification of CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comprehensive Care Corporation (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2010 (the “Report”), Giuseppe Crisafi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

 

This certification accompaniesthis Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Comprehensive Care Corporation and will be retained by Comprehensive Care Corporation and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

92
#### § 529.1 Scope and purpose.

This part determines, in cases where more than one person is the manufacturer of an automobile, which person is to be treated as the manufacturer for purposes of compliance with Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2001 *et seq.*) and rules issued thereunder.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 165 (Monday, August 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 48987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4174]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[No. DoD-2007-OS-0017]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 26, 2007.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: National Security Education Program 
(NSEP) Service Agreement for Scholarship and Fellowship Awards, DD Form 
2752; and National Security Education Program (NSEP) Service Agreement 
Report (SAR), DD Form 2753; OMB Control Number 0704-0368.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 1,650.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 1,650.
    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 275.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is 
necessary to obtain verification that applicable scholarship and 
fellowship recipients are fulfilling service obligation mandated by the 
National Security Education Program Act of 1991, Title VIII of Pub. L. 
102-183, as amended.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Federal government.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: August 21, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4174 Filed 8-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Editorial Note on Part 397
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 397 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 397.69 Highway routing designations; preemption. ( a ) Any State or Indian tribe that establishes or modifies a highway routing designation over which NRHM may or may not be transported on or after November 14, 1994, and maintains or enforces such designation, shall comply with the highway routing standards set forth in § 397.71 of this subpart. For purposes of this subpart, any highway routing designation affecting the highway transportation of NRHM, made by a political subdivision of a State is considered as one made by that State, and all requirements of this subpart apply.
( b ) Except as provided in §§ 397.75 and 397.219, an NRHM route designation made in violation of paragraph (a) of this section is preempted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5125(c).
( c ) A highway routing designation established by a State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe before November 14, 1994 is subject to preemption in accordance with the preemption standards in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of § 397.203.
( d ) A State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe may petition for a waiver of preemption in accordance with § 397.213 of this part.
[59 FR 51830, Oct. 12, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 58485, Sept. 24, 2013; 79 FR 59457, Oct. 2, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 193
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

§ 193.2181 Impoundment capacity: LNG storage tanks. Each impounding system serving an LNG storage tank must have a minimum volumetric liquid impoundment capacity of: ( a ) 110 percent of the LNG tank's maximum liquid capacity for an impoundment serving a single tank;
( b ) 100 percent of all tanks or 110 percent of the largest tank's maximum liquid capacity, whichever is greater, for the impoundment serving more than one tank; or
( c ) If the dike is designed to account for a surge in the event of catastrophic failure, then the impoundment capacity may be reduced to 100 percent in lieu of 110 percent.
[Amdt. 193-17, 65 FR 10960, Mar. 1, 2000]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph C. Barnes, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgmentafnrmed, with costs. Order for extra allowance affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by

Bockes, .J.
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PRINCETON NATIONAL BANCORP, INC. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2010 (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and                    
|    |                                                                                                                                                       
|(2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                      |                               | 
| | -------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Thomas D. Ogaard |                              
| | Name:                | Thomas D. Ogaard              | 
| | Title:               | President
 and                | 
| |                      | Chief
 Executive Officer      | 
|
| | Date:                | April 28,
 2010               | 
|
| | /s/ Todd D. Fanning  |                              
| | Name:                | Todd D. Fanning               | 
| | Title:               | Executive
 Vice President and | 
| |                      | Chief
 Financial Officer      | 
|
| | Date:                | April 28,
 2010               | 

| |        | 
| | ------ | 
| | Page31 | 

---
From: Suzanne Janelle [mailto:suzsljan@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:10 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Please protect the small investor and strengthen fiduciary regulations. All financial advisors 

should have to disclose up front (in plain language) whether they are working in the investors 

best interests.

SLJanelle
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18127]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5596-020]


Town of Bedford, Virginia; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Assessment

    On April 30, 2021, the Town of Bedford, Virginia filed an 
application for a new major license for the 5.0-megawatt Bedford 
Hydroelectric Project (Bedford Project or project; FERC No. 5596). The 
Bedford Project is located on the James River, near the Town of 
Bedford, in Bedford and Amherst counties, Virginia.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on May 31, 2023, 
Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for 
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the 
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not 
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on 
the application to license the Bedford Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested 
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and 
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following 
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations 
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) (2022) require that EAs be completed 
within 1 year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an 
EA. See National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 
as amended by section 107(g)(1)(B)(iii) of the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 2023, Public Law 118-5, section 4336a, 137 Stat. 42.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA......................  January 2024.\1\
Comments on EA............................  February 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Andy Bernick 
at (202) 502-8660 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee8f808a9c8b99c08c8b9c80878d85ae888b9c8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2b3bcb6a0b7a5fcb0b7a0bcbbb1b992b4b7a0b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18127 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1210-AB32-2-1333.html[7/26/2015 1:50:01 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvx-gyjk

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1829

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Linda Bruce

General Comment

I do not want any restrictions enacted on my retirement accounts!! I can manage my own plan and do not need

 government interventions! There are enough regulations already to last more than a lifetime! I have worked hard

 all my life and saved and I don't need any additional government involvement!